Carney on Benghazi edits: Need I remind you that a certain Mr. Mitt Romney tried to make political hay of the attack?

posted at 6:01 pm on May 10, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via NRO, here’s what the White House has been reduced to in order to downplay a scoop that even some liberal mags are now grudgingly admitting isn’t nothing.

This wasn’t the lowlight of the briefing either. The lowlight was Carney mumbling about the White House having made “stylistic” changes to the CIA’s talking points when the entire world now knows, per ABC’s story this morning, that they weren’t merely stylistic. It took 12 edits to eliminate multiple references to terror groups plus, at State’s request, the excision of an entire paragraph noting that CIA had warned before about jihadis operating in Benghazi before Rice got the memo. Petraeus, according to Steve Hayes, was stunned at the revisions. And meanwhile we still don’t have an answer as to why Rice went out the next day and told Tapper that the Benghazi attack was a “direct result” of the Mohammed video. But if you’re dissatisfied with all that, find a mirror and look long and hard into it knowing this: Mitt Romney was dissatisfied too. How do you feel now? Not so good, huh?

Incidentally, a State Department spokesman was asked today what Victoria Nuland meant when she said of the first revisions to the talking points, “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership.” Who in State’s “leadership” was unhappy with the CIA’s first take? No answer. But a happy side effect of having Carney stand there today and essentially blame CIA, as head of the interagency group that drafted the final talking points that ended up in Rice’s hands, is that we might get even more disgruntled whistleblowers to come forward, this time from the intelligence community. Keep ’em coming.

Where’s trolls? Haven’t seen a single one in any of these threads today about breaking news.

I peeked in over a Kos. It was about 10 to 1 bluster about nothing vs worry about impacts. Whenever a reservation was uttered the 9 bluster bombers pounced. And the worryers go deep. Toss Hillary aside and save the king was pretty typical.

Carney is to gravitas as helium is to boat anchors. He’s forty-something years old, but he still looks like that uber-nerd who tried to sell you space for political ads on his grocery-sack book covers back in high school.

This is like the scene out of Austin Powers where he is trying to deny his use of a Swedish-made “male part” enlarger.

Media: We’ve got this memo naming Al Qaeda as the source of the attack.

Carney: It was a video.

Media: We’ve got a series of e-mails from Victoria Nuland saying that it was Al Qaeda but why bring that up since Congress would be critical.

Carney: I’m telling you we thought it was the video.

Media: We’ve got twelve versions of the talking points that gradually eliminate all mention of Al Qaeda or radical Islam.

Carney: I don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Media: We have Multiple clips of Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Obama mentioning that video but nothing in the talking points does and this doesn’t track with the CIA assessment. Who made the decision to blame this on that video.

Carney: All we did was make a single stylistic change. The rest of the story speaks for itself. Thank you that’s all for today.

Mr Carney, if you find your sorry ass west of Abilene, and find your sorry ass is on fire, don’t count of anyone pissing on your sorry ass.

WestTexasBirdDog on May 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM

As if. If it ain’t NY, Boston, or DC Carney can be found in LA or with the royals in Hawaii. Seattle, maybe, if the shaved Yeti is in the mood for King Crab. But West Texas…. Not even on a bet. Spending time in the DFW area is slumming it.

But Mitt Romney did wimp out, let’s face it. I voted for him, but he was too nice a guy to run against these thugs.

Naturally Curly on May 10, 2013 at 7:30 PM

I don’t think he wimped out. He made the odd decision to try and run an honorable campaign (i.e. on the issues) instead of running the kind of campaign you need to deal with a street thug who thinks nothing of accusing you of giving a woman cancer.

But Mitt Romney did wimp out, let’s face it. I voted for him, but he was too nice a guy to run against these thugs.

Naturally Curly on May 10, 2013 at 7:30 PM

I agree.

A GOP candidate needs to be ruthless, have go for the jugular killer instincts, and a take no prisoners attitude to run against today’s American socialists. That is how they operate. However, a Republican must do it with some humor.

Socialist candidates can get away with being basically humorless and with making “mean spirited and divisive” comments — usually disguised as “jokes”. The media, including the Hollywood, TV, and Tinseltown celebrity crowd, will protect them.

Romney was not equipped by personality or temperament to deal with this.

I peeked in over a Kos. It was about 10 to 1 bluster about nothing vs worry about impacts.

DanMan on May 10, 2013 at 7:13 PM

The panel on Special Report tonight commented that Carney did real damage to whatever the administration is trying to do by his lies and mischaracterizations (a nuance I have yet to fully understand). The fact of the matter is the administration can’t really defend this and is scrambling to find a scapegoat. That they are blaming Mitt Romney shows just how caught they know they are.

I fully expect the rat-eared coward to sign out an executive order legalizing gay marriage or something. Anything to change the subject.

I don’t think he wimped out. He made the odd decision to try and run an honorable campaign (i.e. on the issues) instead of running the kind of campaign you need to deal with a street thug who thinks nothing of accusing you of giving a woman cancer.

Happy Nomad on May 10, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Yeah, he didn’t wimp out. It was a deliberate decision. But I also think it suited his personality.

First off, Carney is a mere slapd!ck…Barry and Mooch are SMF’s and i’m sure the Mooch has a bigger d!ck than Barry…however neither of them have 2 balls to rub between them…Hill should be burned at the stake…it is the most heinous crime I’ve ever seen, ever…I pray everyday for my brothers and sisters in the military…and I thank God for their service.

I always appreciate you and others that bring facts and clarity to the issues we see here on HA…I may only be what y’all call a lurker, but i have enjoyed reading the news and comments here for over 6 years.,..stay the good fight and God bless you all.

Like everything else the liberal Mitt touched he blew it with this issue. Instead of attacking on this issue relentlessly he backed off and forgot about it at the first sign of push back by the left/MSM. He wasn’t secure in the attack, didn’t know the issue well enough and thought it wasn’t helping him politically. He did the same thing with the economy and obamacare and it’s why he lost.

Seriously, I can’t believe that they don’t laugh this guy out of the room at this point.

Theophile on May 11, 2013 at 4:07 AM

you have to have a willful disregard for the truth to be a WH reporter nowadays. there is two types of “truth” in DC. the offical line of truth and the real truth. The WH reporters in order to gain “sources” will report the offical line of truth over real truth 9/10 times. Only when it is a direct threat to their reputation will they insert the real truth over the offical truth and this is true for any admin not just Obama.

He wasn’t able to pin your squiggly, squirming reptilian eminence to the wall because you were going to extreme lying lengths to hide the truth?

So who does this tell us a good deal about? Him or you?

Limpet6 on May 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

the point he was trying to make is this whole thing is “politcal” if the WH can make the issue a dem vs rep issue instead of the truth vs lies issue they win since the MSM is all dems they will simply stop reporting it. If however they can’t make it a politcal issue they lose since then the MSM will be forced to cover the scandal as gov run amuck.

Why did Hillary send people into harms way in Benghazi to set up a diplomatic “Outpost”.? Did Stephens go because it was such hazardous duty and he took it on himself rather than send a person under him? Whydid we have a General and Admiral leave (retire) at this time? Did they refuse to stand down when ordered to do so?

Why did Hillary send people into harms way in Benghazi to set up a diplomatic “Outpost”.? Did Stephens go because it was such hazardous duty and he took it on himself rather than send a person under him? Whydid we have a General and Admiral leave (retire) at this time? Did they refuse to stand down when ordered to do so?

Herb on May 11, 2013 at 9:56 AM

I’m no Hillary fan, but the weapons-running under the table to Syria was likely a CIA program, not State. Still, why was Stevens involved in a CIA program if that’s what it was?

More questions, pointing out that we still don’t know what the h we were doing in Benghazi.

I don’t hold this conclusion but some writers have suggested that Hillary actually hates the military and entire books were written on the anti-military and security issues of the early Bill Clinton administration.

Her “…what difference does it make…” applies to either US guys dying or foreigners, it makes no difference to her at all, the argument goes. So she can look families in the eye and lie just like hubby looked the American people in the eye and lied about having sex — even while under oath.

I can’t wait to use my “Ten reasons to prefer Mrs. Obama as a candidate to Hillary” list.

Maybe I’ve missed it, but I’m amazed I haven’t seen anyone make this point yet:

Carney was flat out incorrect about Romney putting out a press release on Benghazi hours after the attacks in order to take political advantage. Romney’s press release had nothing to do with Benghazi. It called out our embassy in Egypt for practically apologizing for our 1st Amendment and saying that an American had abused it by criticizing Mohammed in a YouTube video.

Remember, the YouTube video, which had been posted for months, was circulated in Egypt by several leaders of the “religion of peace” who had whipped up a mob that was protesting at the U.S. embassy in Egypt and had replaced our flag there with the Al-Qaeda flag. The embassy staff posted an apology for the YouTube Video on its website, and that was what Romney responded to, saying we should never apologize for freedom of speech, especially in the face of a mob defacing our embassy.

Benghazi was was on the same day but was a totally separate attack that happened AFTER Romney’s statement about Egypt.

This was a desperate, pathetic amateurish move by an administration fully under the microscope, feeling the heat of scrutiny for its growing mountain of controvertial failures. If I were President & Carney had said this on his own – without being told to ay this – I would have fired him as soon as the Press Conference ended.

Besides looking incredibly moronic for repeating LIES, like ‘there was no ‘off the record’ meeting with the press before this press conference’, this pathetic/petty comment just makes the administration look like it is full death spiral. One can only hope….

The really tragic thing about it is that this clown will be given a job at ABC or NBC making a gazillion dollars a year for spending five years lieing his fanny off. Says something about our political system as well as our values. Pretty pathetic.